"1+1=2" as a string of symbols is open to interpretation, however, both you and I understand the idea that that string of symbols is conveying, and that idea is true objectively.
I can choose to disagree and doesn’t matter what you do I can assign a different meaning to it
No ideas are objective truth, and objective truth is something that can’t even be tested
I don't even understand what that means. Ideas don't have meaning, they are meaning. What does it mean to assign a different meaning to the idea represented as "1+1=2"?
>No ideas are objective truth
No. Mathematical truths are objectively true. Even if addition itself is false in the universe, in the sense that in some cases you can put one real thing next to another and get other than two real things next to each other as a result, that 1+1=2 is true objectively. It would just mean that the universe is based on an axiomatic system that is more lax than our own.
I can say that 1+1=2 means it’s lunchtime on the moon
I can also say that 1+1=11
I can’t force you (nor anyone else), to accept or agree with those meanings, but I can definitely assign any meaning I want
No ideas, nor meaning, nor formulas, nor math are objective truth
Just the fact that I can disagree with you right now means there isn’t an objective truth. If there was, then we wouldn’t even be able to disagree
And the universe is not based on any axiomatic anything, maybe your models of the universe are, but those models are just a subjective approximation to whatever the reality of the universe is, which we all perceive and experience differently in a subjective manner
You're still confusing the symbols with the meaning.
>Just the fact that I can disagree with you right now means there isn’t an objective truth. If there was, then we wouldn’t even be able to disagree
Please explain how objective truth existing would prevent people from disagreeing with each other.
>And the universe is not based on any axiomatic anything, maybe your models of the universe are, but those models are just a subjective approximation to whatever the reality of the universe is
Yes, that's more or less what I said. However, those models contain objectively true statements with regards to themselves. According to the theory of relativity no object can go faster than light, correct? A sandwich is an object, correct? Then it's objectively true that according to the theory of relativity a sandwich can't go faster than light. It doesn't matter whether sandwiches actually are capable of going faster than light, that the theory of relativity states (indirectly) that sandwiches can't go faster than light is an objective truth.
Likewise, in this conversation, 1+1=2 is saying that if you take the idea represented by the symbol 1 and then add it to itself, the result is the idea represented by the symbol 2.
The ideas behind words and the words themselves are not equivalent.
Until the moment we have to take each other to court, then suddenly two different trials with two different juries comes out with conflicting answers.